Lepp et al v. Yuba County et al

Filing 104

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/18/2018 ADOPTING 83 Findings and Recommendations consistent with the above modifications and clarifications and DENYING 81 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This case is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial proceedings. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REVEREND HEIDI LEPP, et al.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1317-KJM-EFB PS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

YUBA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On May 21, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

18

were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and

19

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on May 29,

20

2018, and they were considered by the undersigned.

21

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,

22

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds

23

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis, but

24

modifies footnote 1 as follows: In their ex parte application, plaintiffs improperly identify

25

“DOES 1-99” as plaintiffs in this action. A plaintiff’s use of a fictitious name may “run[ ] afoul

26

of the public’s common law right of access to judicial proceedings.” Does I through XIII v.

27

Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Cf. Fed. R. Civ.

28

P. 10(a) (requiring a complaint to include the names of all parties). Plaintiffs provide no
1

1

justification for their departure from “[t]he normal presumption in litigation [] that parties must

2

use their real names.” Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036,

3

1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, to the extent the three named plaintiffs in this action purport to

4

represent the other unnamed plaintiffs, they are not entitled to do so as there is no indication they

5

are attorneys licensed to practice law. See C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696,

6

697 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding a non-attorney may appear pro se on his or her own behalf but lacks

7

authority to appear as an attorney for others) (citations omitted).

8

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

9

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 21, 2018, are adopted,

10

consistent with the above modifications and clarifications; and

11
12

2. Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order and motion for
preliminary injunction (ECF No. 81) is denied.

13

3. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further pretrial

14

proceedings.

15

DATED: July 18, 2018.

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2